Owen Parsons

I've seen one. It has been theorized that it was a false flag operation to blame the attack on the Egyptians. If true, it was a rerun of the Lavon Affair, which was also a failure: Israeli agents attacked U.S. and British targets in Egypt in 1954 with the intent of blaming it on the Egyptians. The affair is named after the Israeli minister who had to resign as a result. The targets in the Lavon Affair were such places as public libraries and post offices. You fail to mention that there were no deaths or even injuries in these bombings (deliberately so), and property damage was slight. This is usually left out, leaving the impression that these were something like terrorist attacks. In any case, if the intention was to blame the attack on the Egyptians, you would think the Israelis would at least sink the ship, and failing that, not inform the U.S. Embassy immediately after calling the attack off.

More anti-Israeli nonsense. Israel as a state can certainly be subjected to criticism, but much of it is ridiculous and borderline, yes, "anti-Semitic." I really fail to see how the attack on the USS Liberty can be seen as anything other than a case of mistaken identity. First of all, I have never seen any plausible motive whatsoever put forward for why Israel would deliberately attack the ship. Second, Israel did not sink the Liberty. These two factors pretty much "sink" the theory. Its just another smear to paint the Jewish nation as totally malevolent and evil. This little piece by Dr. Dore Gold (former Israeli ambassador to the U.N.) shows that the U.S.'s recent Iraqi adventure has not been at Israel's behest, nor is it even necessarily in Israel's best interest. Also, this lengthy analysis by Dr. Francisco Gil-White shows that U.S. foreign policy has been pro-PLO, not pro-Israeli. How interesting that the United States should get the PLO out of Lebanon on the brink of their destruction by Israel, or that the PLO provided security for U.S. diplomats in the same conflict. This is just one example among many. In addition, another long series of articles by the same author details the attacks on Israel in the media by "former" CIA officials Raymond McGovern and Vincent Cannistraro, including linking Israel to 9-11 (for which there is still no evidence that hasn't been "cooked," so to speak). Hi,Owen..i agree with you,there are plenty of "woe is Israel" articles out there.We're so far apart on how we see things in regards to the role Israel plays in American foreign policy and the media there's no need to even comment further....i will add that you've embellished Ray McGovern's influence in the media.His best moments have been on CSpan,which is not the mainstream media. Ray McGovern's work since 9/11 has been very admirable in my opinion.. Gil-White documents how Raymond McGovern's work is disingenuous, dishonest, and malicious, particularly about things he should be aware of as a "former" CIA man. McGovern's main point linking Israel to 9/11, which appears to be the ZIM shipping company allegations, have been debunked (note: there is much on this particular site I do not support, but this is solidly documented). As for McGovern in the mainstream media, I'll quote Gil-White here: "If you do a search in the Lexis-Nexis archive, limiting yourself just to the major papers, McGovern has appeared a total of 80 times since 1999. This gives a yearly average of about 13 appearances, which is already impressive and yet deceptive because McGovern's exposure has been growing over time: in the last year alone (August 2004-August 2005) he has appeared 30 times, which is more than twice a month. Remember, this is just in the major papers that are archived by Lexis-Nexis; his total exposure is more impressive still, for he appears also in papers not archived by Lexis-Nexis, and in radio and television. (And none of this counts appearances of McGovern's VIPS that do not mention McGovern specifically.)" It is indeed obvious that our views on American foreign policy towards Israel diverge significantly, but I would like to know how you can reconcile America's rescue of the P.L.O. from extinction in Lebanon with your views (for starters).

More anti-Israeli nonsense. Israel as a state can certainly be subjected to criticism, but much of it is ridiculous and borderline, yes, "anti-Semitic." I really fail to see how the attack on the USS Liberty can be seen as anything other than a case of mistaken identity. First of all, I have never seen any plausible motive whatsoever put forward for why Israel would deliberately attack the ship. Second, Israel did not sink the Liberty. These two factors pretty much "sink" the theory. Its just another smear to paint the Jewish nation as totally malevolent and evil. This little piece by Dr. Dore Gold (former Israeli ambassador to the U.N.) shows that the U.S.'s recent Iraqi adventure has not been at Israel's behest, nor is it even necessarily in Israel's best interest. Also, this lengthy analysis by Dr. Francisco Gil-White shows that U.S. foreign policy has been pro-PLO, not pro-Israeli. How interesting that the United States should get the PLO out of Lebanon on the brink of their destruction by Israel, or that the PLO provided security for U.S. diplomats in the same conflict. This is just one example among many. In addition, another long series of articles by the same author details the attacks on Israel in the media by "former" CIA officials Raymond McGovern and Vincent Cannistraro, including linking Israel to 9-11 (for which there is still no evidence that hasn't been "cooked," so to speak).

I think the anecdotal evidence about voter fraud and the Outfit's supposed role is rather insignificant next to the statistical analysis. The entire paper (which I linked) is more detailed and thorough than the article.

Good article. It pretty much confirms what I had already suspected via pattern recognition of the attacks on Kennedy. Edit: Binder's full paper can be downloaded here: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=888638

I don't think Piper dislikes the Jewish race as such, he just dislikes Jewish religion and culture. Indeed, he is very fond of reminding us of his friendship with Mark Lane and enjoys citing Jewish writers that in some way or another lend support to any of his numerous theories.

There is really no evidence that Sharon had knowledge of the massacre (which was, I think the unfamiliar reader should know, carried out by the Phalangists, not the Israelis, something that is usually not brought up in the soundbites) until too late, and the intelligence received was not sufficient*, but certainly he deserves criticism for his lack of foresight in this situation, if nothing else. It should also be noted that the IDF rejected requests from the Phalangists, before they entered the refugee camps, for artillery and tanks. Why? So as to prevent injury to civillians. Also, I don't think it serves the interests of truth to use the opinions of an ex-girlfriend as representative of all Israelis, as you do ("...in the minds of Israelis" "This is how Israelis feel" etc. etc.). But even if such sweeping statements were true, who can blame them for being paranoid? Just take a look at the history of modern Israel. * From the Kahan Commission: "We do not believe that responsibility is to be imputed to the Defense Minister for not ordering the removal of the Phalangists from the camps when the first reports reached him about the acts of killing being committed there. As was detailed above, such reports initially reached the Defense Minister on Friday evening; but at the same time, he had heard from the Chief of Staff that the Phalangists' operation had been halted, that they had been ordered to leave the camps and that their departure would be effected by 5:00 a.m. Saturday. These preventive steps might well have seemed sufficient to the Defense Minister at that time, and it was not his duty to order additional steps to be taken, or to have the departure time moved up, a step which was of doubtful feasibility."

You do realize that the prohibition against intermarriage has to to do with religion and not race, right? Anyone of any ethnicity can become a Jew. Ditto for the concept of "chosen people." The fact that most religious Jews are also of the Jewish ethnicity is beside the point.

I've actually done some reading in the area of Old Testament history, and I can confidently say that Thomas L. Thompson's work is bunk (motivated by his own "theological" needs). This man is not an archaelogist and you will look long and hard to find one that agrees with him. The closest is Israel Finkelstein, and that ain't all that close. See Kenneth Kitchen's (who is not a fundamentalist) latest work ("On the Reliability of the Old Testament") for a pretty thorough trouncing of Thompson, or even Dever's books. There is nothing inherently racist about the concept of "Chosen People," this is just garbage and shows your own hostilty to Judaism as a religious practice (which was why I raised the issue of it being in the Old Testament). And some modern readers may find parts of the Old Testament offensive (myself being one of them, btw), but it needs to be appreciated in the context of the time frame in which it was written. I saw that. Weberman uses that to smear Garrison, if I remember correctly, but it may be true. Regardless of whether it is or not, Garrison was certainly not infallible, and, if you noticed, he spends most of his published writings hammering the CIA, not the Mossad. Shaw's links with the CIA are clear and well documented (through the CIA's own documents), his Mossad ones less so (but perhaps not insubstantial). Ditto with Permindex, which is now shown to be even more CIA linked with Mellen's revelations about Ferenc Naggy's CIA ties, among other things. I'm not a holocaust enthusiast, but I found your little dishonest article quite reprehensible. Up until that point, I had enjoyed reading your posts in alt.assassination.jfk and was even interested in buying your book (even then, when I was anti-Israel, I didn't totally believe your thesis, but found it interesting). Novick's book (which I have come across before) does look interesting and I may come around to reading it some day.

For what its worth, I've looked at both sides of the debate and I'm convinced that Zapruder film alteration (or the "Zapruder hoax") is on par with moon hoax stuff (and I don't mean that as a compliment). It just diverts attention away from more fruitful areas of research.

Michael Neumann has damned himself with his own words. See here. I am somewhat surprised that the anti-Zionist movement still regards him as credible enough to do their cause good.

In case you missed the memo, the inflated Auschwitz figure was recognized to be inflated by just about all holocaust historians long before it was officially lowered and was not used to obtain the standard six million figure. Andy has already gone over this in this very thread and I posted a link a while ago. Are you willing to admit that you were wrong? Don't complain if people focus on the Holocaust to the exclusion of your assassination theories. You brought this on your self by trotting out the Auschwitz red herring in an article. Also, although I was not yet ready to label you an anti-Semite (your holocaust denial could just be an outgrowth of your anti-Zionism, after all), I think I can do so now. The fact that you see Rothschild involvement in the Lincoln assassination, before modern Israel's founding, raises an eyebrow (the fact that you came across this in a book you claim was not written by an anti-Semite is hardly relevant). In addition, your classifying the Jews' claim to be God's chosen people as "rascist" (a thing reiterated, oh, I don't know, how many times in the Old Testament?) is also interesting.

"Why BY THE WAY IS A THREAD ON MY POLITICAL VIEWS OF ANY CONSEQUENCE TO THE JFK ASSASSINATION CASE" That's something I was wondering about myself. What is this, some kind of tribunal in which Tim Gratz is being grilled by John Simkin? I think this thread is TOTALLY out of line. It's simply harassment by a socialist intolerant of someone who disagrees with his views. Disappointed, Roy Bierma Royce, read post #14. Steve. [EDITED FOR LENGTH] He often states that his knowledge of the law must prevail when berating those who disagree. Tim's dished out a ton of spiteful invective and also threatened legal recourse. This thread's not out of line, you're wrong there. And Tim's no martyr. Ditto to that, Rush. I think Tim should be prepared to take some of what he dishes out.

I think the issue here is less Piper's advocacy of Mossad complicity in the assassination than it is his holocaust denial.

I think the anti-Israeli feelings of some of our members (Mark Stapleton wondered somewhere if you weren't just distributing Zionist propaganda) are allowing them to overlook some of Mr. Piper's glaring deficiencies. There is nothing inherently wrong with proposing Mossad complicity, but the messenger here ought to be considered.

This quote is a fabrication. See here. As is this one. See here. The quote debunked on this page is somewhat different, but it is given the same date and repeats key phrases and a sentence. The only source I can find for the Fulbright quote is on neo-Nazi and militant Islamic sites. It looks just as phony as the two Sharon quotes. Its this sort of stuff that lead me to take a second look at my original position on the Israel-Palestine conflict.

I really hope you haven't been taken in by Piper's phony calculations, as you seem to keep granting him the numerical high-ground. The inflated Auschwitz figure of 4 million was not utilized in arriving at the standard 6 million toll of the holocaust.

I've seen that. It wasn't because the fellow was a jew, but because Piper says (and I have no way of verifying him) that he was an Israeli arms dealer. You certainly missed the subtlety of that argument. Anyway, I think a more likely explanation that JFK didn't go into Mossad involvement (and, for my own part, I'm pretty sure there was none) is because Piper was the first person to really push this theory and make it coherent. It wouldn't have been something Stone could have drawn on from his reading of assassination literature.

The ADL also called Norman Finkelstein a "holocaust denier," which is pretty much total BS. The ADL is a joke organization at this point, and I say this as someone who supports Israel. Irrespective of what the ADL says, however, I think Piper can be reasonably classed as a holocaust denier. See this little article he wrote. Then, lest any of you are taken in by this sort of argument, see here.

As I typed on the other Holland thread, the CIA has a known history of targeting left liberal magazines like The Nation PRECISELY BECAUSE OF THIER STRATEGIC POSITION ON THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM. In many ways the CIA is more likely to directly intervene in a left-liberal magazine than in a right wing mag. This function is sometimes refered to as "left gatekeeping" The book to Read is The CIA and Culture by Francis Saunders. It was published by the New Press in 2000. I know Im repeating myself here, but in view of latest Holland tripe published this week, this history of the CIA domestic political warfare has to be brought to the attention of as many people as possible. Yeah, but he's just so blatant. Its like they aren't even trying anymore.

I'm really failing to see how Mr. Holland gets published in the Nation with all the McCarthyite redbaiting he does. Has he ever taken a single "progressive" stance anywhere?

I'd just like to point out that Garrison probably never said this. It comes from a very dubious source (Jim Phelan) and is in contradiction of his policy of not mentioning Shaw and Ferrie's homosexuality.

Mellen has stated she has Gerry on tape stating that. Now he has changed his tune, not necessarily denying it, but claiming that Mellen recorded him without his permission, or something like that. Please see my post in the books section on the Helms' testimony. It is available on the Mary Ferrel site and accurately quoted (although the information comes from Helms' interviewers, not Helms himself. This isn't a problem, though, as she does not quote Helms as saying so, she just cites his testimony as the source in the footnotes). On Harvey, you have failed to provide any information to the contratry. I don't see how she was "agenda-driven" on Murgado. She corrected her error and the corrected version is the one that is seen in her book and on her website.

Yes, exactly. It is explictly identified as non-historical and therefore has no bearing on the book's historicity. This isn't a hard thing to grasp.

A metaphor for the Angel Murgado story, wherein the involvement of Bobby's associates with Oswald supposedly silenced him. Besides that, you are being dishonest here when you say it is only qualified as a "metaphor" in the notes. I don't believe that I'm the one being dishonest. Taking my above quote in context, it had nothing to do with Murgado, and the explicit quote from the book immediately preceding the segment quoted by Owen plainly demonstrates that: My point about the metaphor is that the problems with the historicity of the book run far deeper than the source notes problem. Sorry if I didn't quote your statement in full, but I want to keep my posts short. The segment from your post that you quote only bears out what I was saying. "[O]nly to qualify it as a 'metaphor' in the notes..." would amount to you saying that it is not identified as such in the main body of the text. How does Mellen's use of a story that she clearly identifies as fictitious have any bearing on the historicity of the book? Also, I never said your post was about Murgado, I am saying that that is what Mellen's use of the Hemming tale is in relation to. She uses it as a "metaphor" in regards to Bobby's supposed proximity to Oswald, and how this would supposedly silence him, all implications that she draws from Murgado's story.